Posted by charletonp on Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:23:40

It really is time to stop this climate change bandwaggon from rolling on as it is. Anyone who saw the excellent channel 4 programme "the great global warming scam" last Thursday 8th March will have seen the debunking of the presumed causal linkage between rising global temperatures and C02 levels. For anyone who missed it, here are a few headlines: 1. Back in the 1970's after 30 years of falling global temperatures, the then current scare stories aired on the TV all related to the impending ice age (remember ?). Temperatures had been falling for 30 years then in spite of significantly increased post war industrial activity (! What then of all THAT C02?). 2. The earth experiences regular global atmospheric temperature cycles, as in the ice ages. Only 1000 years ago the Vikings were able to colonise areas of Greenland currently under ice. 3. There is a direct relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature, but it is the inverse of that supposed by the current alarmists - namely rising temperature causes increased C02 release by the oceans with a time lag of some 800 years. Thus - rising temperatures increase C02 not the other way round ! That both are rising at the moment is entirely coincidental 4. H20 is a greenhouse gas and there are several others but what of all that water vapour !!, and volcanoes annually emit more C02 than all human activity. 5. There is a large body of money available from governments to provide scientific research grants in this area and many scientists are not stupid - they will take what money is available and do the research which can then be dubiously interpreted by organisations like the UN IPCC. There are over 17000 scientist signatories however of the Oregon petition which differs from the "party line" interpretation of the global warming/C02 causal relationship scenario. That's 17000 eminent scientists (mostly PhDs) to want to say "enough is enough". 6. Coupled with the self interests of some in the scientific community there is also the Environmental Journalist interested parties - with the current bandwaggon they have a happy hunting ground and will continue to report the scare stories, and of course - its a gift to the politicians who want new means of taxing us - apparantly now you see with our consent. We have all been so stitched up tight by the environmental lobby that we are lambs to the slaughter.

Stand up and be counted. There is a current global warming trend. It is linked to the variability of the sun. It will be over within decades and has happened many many times before. It has nothing whatever to do with CO2 levels. If it isn't ice ages it's imminent alien invasions or impending asteroid smashes - it seems human nature requires a disaster scenario to keep us all scared to death and pliable for the politicians.

Oh yes - I may as well add that I was an atmospheric scientist in the 1980's but left to work in computers/space systems. I don't think I have all the answers but I have a few questions - and happily channel 4 aired some of the the sense in this confused area last week.

Can this Website not take the enlightened road - Conservatives do have more natural common sense than the others. Very commendable to save resources, look for alternatives to fossil fuels, live and work responsibly, but for pities sake take off this global warming /C02 hair shirt.

Paul Charleton

Posted by DaveGould on Monday, 12 March 2007 00:05:07

Your Swindle programme was in itself a scam, and has been rebutted in many places:

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task;=view&id;=137&Itemid;=83
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle
http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/7180087257

You are right, a tax bringing flights in line with less-polluting car travel won't be popular. But It is perhaps the first Tory policy announcement not driven by spin.

Posted by Splatfly on Monday, 12 March 2007 01:12:27

"JRI's mission is to promote responsible environmental stewardship in accordance with Christian principles and the wise use of science and technology."
Oh I see, In accordance with Christian principles, just like the dinosaurs died in the great flood.
http://www.jri.org.uk/intro/about.htm

George Marshal uses the old trick, 'Attack the man's science because of the man's credentials'. So if I work for an Oil company my life as a scientist is instantly screwed? Well that's good knowing, may be I should just keep my scientific opinion quiet and say 'I was gonna tell you but...' when my critics ideas mess things up even more. Does a scientist who has Noble Peace Prize instantly get believed because he has that prize? No he doesn't.
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle


And from the words of Robert1234 on that same forum,
"Oh dear, please see above for the perfect example of a killer greeny in a desperate attempt to ward off reasoned argument by cutting and pasting endless garbage he doesn't understand but believes anyway."
http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/7180087257

Do you really believe everything you find in a google search?
http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/magazines/TJ/TJ11_dinosaur_extinction.htm
I hope you don't.

Posted by PaulJohnston on Monday, 12 March 2007 02:14:30

Does it ever occur to David Cameron and George Osborne that Zac Goldsmith and Al Gore might just be wrong? In the mid-70s all the talk was of Global COOLING and the dawn of a new Ice Age. I remember. I was there. I was 30 in 1975 so I remember it well. The Channel 4 programme suggested that Gore and co. have inverted cause and effect - warming increases atmospheric CO2, not the other way round. Shouldn't Conservatives at least try to find out whether the Green assertions about climate change are sustainable and at least on the right track before endorsing them?
Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot!

Posted by LesGranges on Monday, 12 March 2007 11:06:46

Is it possible that the Channel 4 programme gave us more of the true picture re climate change than the green lobby? Would it not be sensible to find an unbiased scientific expert's opinion before proposing taxes, that might lose votes, on an activity that might not be causing any climate problem?

Posted by JonathanWhitney on Monday, 12 March 2007 11:17:24

I think airlines should be rewarded for cleaner planes, but flying does contribute to climate change and that is what the Air Passenger Duty is for, and that is why there are no frills airlines.In the news today there was a flight with no passengers on by Meditterean Airlines I think. They should be punished, and taxing executive flights should go up.The Friends of the Earth charity want VATexemptions on domestic flights and duty free removed.That will help the environment but the government should do more to keep train fares down as the alternative.

Posted by skegy on Monday, 12 March 2007 13:34:43

Peter at least your thinking. And I agree with you. What you have against you is, non thinkers. The people with no common sense. Yes they may be academics, but totally devoid of putting 2 and 2 together. These people don't just believe what they are told, they go to extreme lengths to stop you thinking.

 

Comment edited by skegy on Monday, 12 March 2007 13:35:00

Posted by MRBLUESKY on Monday, 12 March 2007 15:45:51

Good wee blog Peter. China , Russia . USA these countries only want money that is what they worship , these countries live with pollution 24/7 they dont give a toss about the future as long as the bucks roll in now.. we need to start reducing populations worldwide and start reforesting the world. we also need clean fuels even nucleur ,

Posted by Roverdc on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 06:38:14

Sorry but when the road building is included car travel is at least twice as polluting as air travel assuming full cars and aircraft. In reality aircraft are usually much more highly utilised so the figure is much worse.

Posted by DaveGould on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 15:19:06

Posted by Roverdc on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 06:38:14
"Sorry but when the road building is included car travel is at least twice as polluting as air travel assuming full cars and aircraft. In reality aircraft are usually much more highly utilised so the figure is much worse."

How much road building? It's not like we're going to build twice as many roads.

Splatfly - your token attack on those sources ignores the comprehensive defeat of the Swindle arguments they contain. If you continue to refuse to engage in debate on the actual arguments then it's only fair that someone calls you on it.

 

Comment edited by DaveGould on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 15:20:21

Posted by IAmNoOne on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 16:38:36

Posted by DaveGould on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 15:19:06
"Splatfly - your token attack on those sources ignores the comprehensive defeat of the Swindle arguments they contain. If you continue to refuse to engage in debate on the actual arguments then it's only fair that someone calls you on it."

Dave, you do a pretty nifty line it egregious hypocricy mate! In one post you go out of your way to "discredit the credentials of the documentary maker" (unsuccessfully, I might add!) and then in another you have a go at someone else for their "token attacks on those very sources!" And yet, what you (seem to) fail to realise is that as soon as *thinking* people see the name George Monbiot in any "discrediting of credentials", they think "oh REALLY!!" and the attempt at discediting backfires!

If you want to resort to such tactics, then we could all do the same, and quickly bring the discussion down to gutter level. For instance, one of those links you posted, a "critique" by John Houghton, President of the John Ray Initiative. Firstly, if I could be arsed (I can't) I'm sure I could find something that suggests his credentials are less than impeccable. Secondly, just from a quick Google search I see he's been an active climate change campaigner since at the very least 2005 (I didn't look further than halfway down the page). So, we have a "greenie" "discrediting" an "anti-greenie"? Well, that's totally reliable, innit?! That's like getting the Archbishop of Canterbury to "rebut" anyone saying there is no God - and you'd believe him?!? Have you never heard of a concept called "vested interests"?

Posted by DaveGould on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:37:33

Posted by IAmNoOne on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 16:38:36
"Dave, you do a pretty nifty line it egregious hypocricy mate! In one post you go out of your way to "discredit the credentials of the documentary maker" (unsuccessfully, I might add!)"

I'm guessing you're confusing me with someone else.
All I've done that *vaguely* matches your accusation here is post a link to George Monbiot's rebuttal (always accompanied by 2 comprehensive rebuttals of the Swindle claims) and pointed out that supposed independent scientists were actually in the pay of Exxon-Mobil.

Credentials are quite irrelevant to what I've been saying - the science is. But if somebody attacks the credentials of the IPCC or http://realclimate.org (as if that refutes my argument), I will defend them.

Maybe you're not capable of understanding the science. That's probably the position of general public and is nothing to be ashamed of. But then you would have to explain why no serious scientific criticisms have been made of the IPCC report.

 

Comment edited by DaveGould on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:42:21

Posted by IAmNoOne on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 17:59:41

I DO apologise; I WAS mixing you up with someone else. However, your reference to a rebuttal which was based in part on the work of George Monbiot is quite frankly no rebutall at all. George Monbiot rabidly attacks anything and everything that disagrees with the orthodox view; that is his raison d'etre. If George Monbiot does his usual attack-dog piece on a particular subject, people with any sense automatically look to see if the other side of the argument is not more credible.

Yes, I am quite capable of understanding the science. It's not that hard, really. And the IPCC discredits itself by the fact that it is a politically appointed body, sponsored by governments, and therefore it will only ever find what its political masters want it to find. If you don't understand the power of political pressure, then that's equally understandable. There have been cases of scientists whose name went on the IPCC report who didn't agree with its conclusions; there have been those who have went to court to get their names removed. There have been scientists who were part of the IPCC who tried to speak out in public, and received death threats and similar to silence them. That doesn't help the skeptical to have confidence in the politically tainted findings of the IPCC. There have also been those who have suggested that the IPCC report is backed by pretty much anyone they could get to make up the numbers, whether or not they had any scientific understanding. While I haven't tried to verify this, I COULD very easily believe it - that's how political agendas are met!

Posted by carlos on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 18:00:25

lol... round and round the merry go round..

people check out this film: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7485732493597773138&q;=race+to+zero+point

if any one of these technologies work, then by by the whole debate.
Why are these technologies not even being talked about!!! Maybe because the oil/ernergy companies couldn't charge us for it??

This is a swindle, whether it is us or natural causation. Could it be that we are just running out of oil, and so if we (the people, not government: their energy consumption went up by masively in the last yr) use less, the oil companies will be able to sell it to us for longer, at HIGHER PRICES?!

Scarcity = control, abundance = freedom

Do some research into alternative energy sources, google Tesla, you will see that almost 100 yrs ago, he wanted to craete free energy, but wok blocked by JP Morgan. Why, because they couldn't make money out of it. This would have changed the last century: no starving in africa, no wars for oil (the 1st world war was in reality over the control of Iraqs oild fields: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q;=history+of+oil)..

It disgusts me beyond words.. and so we end up squabling over whther or not to tax air travel, or whether or not CO2 drives cilmate change .. it's really very sad, and plays right into their hands. Divide and conquer